Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Compromised machines liable for damage?

  • From: Hannigan, Martin
  • Date: Mon Dec 26 22:08:35 2005

Title: RE: Compromised machines liable for damage?

If you want to choke off freeware(gnu, et. Al), sure, go after them. I doubt the licensing agreement allows it though. (IANAL).

I think all you'd do is encourage people to write more music about 'freeing the software'. I'd rather not be stricken in that fashion.

I think that angle is DOA.

Martin


 -----Original Message-----
From:   Joseph Jackson [mailto:jjackson@aninetworks.com]
Sent:   Mon Dec 26 03:13:02 2005
To:     Hannigan, Martin
Cc:     NANOG
Subject:        RE: Compromised machines liable for damage?

What about the coders that write the buggy software in the first place?
Don't they hold some of the responsibility also?  IE I am running some
webserver software that a bug is found in it.  Attackers use that bug in the
software to generate a DOS attack against you from my machines.  No update
has been released for the software I am running and/or no warning as been
released. You sue me I sue the coders.  What a wonderful world.  (I'm not
for this but its another side of the issue.)



  _____ 

From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Hannigan, Martin
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 9:22 PM
To: Steven M. Bellovin
Cc: Dave Pooser; NANOG
Subject: Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?





Yes, I agree. As usual, I too am 'IANAL'.

Marty



 -----Original Message-----
From:   Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@cs.columbia.edu
<mailto:smb@cs.columbia.edu> ]
Sent:   Sun Dec 25 23:52:27 2005
To:     Hannigan, Martin
Cc:     Dave Pooser; NANOG
Subject:        Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?

In message
<80632326218FE74899BDD48BB836421A033001@Dul1wnexmb04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.c
om>, "Hannigan, Martin" writes:

>
>Dave, RIAA wins almost 100pct vs p2p'ers ir sues. Its an interesting =
>dichotomy.
>

"Wins" is too strong a word, since I don't think any have gone to
court -- see
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Music-Download-Suit.html
<http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Music-Download-Suit.html>
as my source.

Besides, it's a very different situation.  For my take on liability
issues -- note that I'm not a lawyer, and note that this is from 1994
-- see http://www.wilyhacker.com/1e/chap12.pdf
<http://www.wilyhacker.com/1e/chap12.pdf>

                --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
<http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb>







Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.